Assessing the Impact of Neighborhood Size on Temporal Convolutional Networks for Modeling Land Cover Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Land cover change (LCC) studies are increasingly using deep learning (DL) modeling techniques. Past studies have leveraged temporal or spatiotemporal sequences of historical LC data to forecast changes with DL models. However, these studies do not adequately assess the association between neighborhood size and DL model capability to forecast LCCs, where neighborhood size refers to the spatial extent captured by each data sample. The objectives of this research study were to: (1) evaluate the effect of neighborhood size on the capacity of DL models to forecast LCCs, specifically Temporal Convolutional Networks (TCN) and Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN-TCN), and (2) assess the effect of auxiliary spatial variables on model capacity to forecast LCCs. First, each model type and neighborhood setting configuration was assessed using data derived from multitemporal MODIS LC for the Regional District of Bulkley-Nechako, Canada, comparing subareas exhibiting different amounts of LCCs with trends obtained for the full region. Next, outcomes were compared with three other study regions. The modeling results were evaluated with three-map comparison measures, where the real-world LC for the next timestep, the real-world LC for the previous timestep, and the forecasted LC for the next year were used to calculate correctly transitioned areas. Across all regions explored, it was observed that increasing neighborhood sizes improved the DL model’s capabilities to forecast short-term LCCs. CNN–TCN models forecasted the most correct LCCs for several regions while reducing error due to quantity when provided additional spatial variables. This study contributes to the systematic exploration of neighborhood sizes on selected spatiotemporal DL techniques for geographic applications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".